Monday, June 28, 2010

Over the weekend I moved from Minneapolis to Columbia Heights; from district 61A represented by Karen Clark and Linda Berglin, to district 50A represented by Carolyn Laine and Satveer Chaudhary.

Tonight is the SD 50 DFL Central Committee meeting to decide if Chaudary will keep his DFL endorsement. The outcome will determine if the primary will be contested or not as former state Rep. Barb Goodwin has said she will challenge Chaudary in the primary if he is stripped of the endorsement, which she also characterized as a likely occurrence. I'll have more on this after the committee meeting today.

In this post I instead wanted to focus on Carolyn Laine's GOP opponent for state house this year, Timothy Utz. Let's just start with the quote on the front page of his website:

"Liberty only endures when Americans diligently use the chains of the Constitution to restrain the three branches of government."
~Timothy Utz
February 9, 2010

What exactly does that mean? What are the "chains of the Constitution"? I thought that the point of the three branches of government was to restrain each other. Aren't the three branches of government made up of Americans? This is one of those quotes that's meant to sound really deep and meaningful, but it doesn't mean anything. How about some more?

So many elected officials at the Minnesota state level, Democrats and Republicans alike, continue spending our taxes, restricting our personal liberties and creating an ever greater heavy hand of government. The result is an endless gorging of Minnesota tax payer's dollars and intrusion in our lives. Party affiliation fails to draw any real distinction when considering electing leadership in Saint Paul. Year after year the state government continues expanding to the point where few if any elected officials today understand the proper or legal function of State government.

I wonder if you "understand the proper and legal function of state government" Tim? The reason that "so many elected officials at the Minnesota state level, Democrats and Republicans alike, continue spending our taxes" is because that's why taxes are collected, to be spent. This should be obvious. Conservative calls for lower taxes are one thing, but what Tim seems to be saying is that the problem is not the taxing, but the spending of the taxes. What does he propose we do with all that tax money that isn't spent? He doesn't elaborate.

The other critique contained in the above passage is about "restricting our personal liberties and creating an ever greater heavy hand of government." What examples of this does Tim Utz tell us about on his website? Exactly one, the primary seatbelt law. That's it. That's the totality of government intrusion. Look, I'm not going to say that the states seatbelt laws are the greatest thing in the world, but to hold it up as the pinnacle of government intrusion in our lives is ridiculous. If the primary seatbelt law is the extent of government intrusion in our lives than I'm not concerned about government intrusion in the least. Seriously, how hard is it to buckle your seat belt?

Not surprisingly he is also against the smoking ban.

I am a non-smoker and I would still vote to repeal the statewide smoking ban. Our constitution and logic (a quality long lost in Saint Paul) dictates free association. Two examples are local watering holes or bars and Middle Eastern Hookah eateries where culture dictates smoking.

As stated before, when government taxes, they legitimize goods, services or products. Restricting, limiting and banning them, they become hypocrisy. Well-intended legislators and lobby groups have long forgotten that "We the People" rule our personal lives, not government. A government's first duty is to protect personal liberty, not dictate conduct.

What he is saying is that if the government taxes something they legitimize it and therefore it should be subject to no restrictions whatsoever. I suppose he feels this way about everything the government taxes than; like prescription drugs, we should just be able to go into CVS and buy as much Oxycontin as we want right? Who's the government to tell us we can't? What about Alcohol, minors should be allowed to buy beer at school I guess, you can't place any restrictions on it if it's being taxed right? Same with cars, we don't need drivers' licenses because we pay taxes on the car itself.

Suffice it to say if you believe any of the above Tim Utz is the guy for you. If, however, you are a sane, rational person who values quality government you will be supporting Carolyn Laine in house district 50A.

2 comments:

I just love peanut gallery commentators. I thought the ballot only had 2 candidates listed in November, When did Tony register for the 2010 election? Reviewing content of a candidate's position is one thing, taking pot shots is another.

I did take some pot shots at your expense, but there were also some salient points raised. Perhaps you'd like to respond to a few of those comments directly?

For instance, do you really believe that "when government taxes, they legitimize goods, services or products. Restricting, limiting and banning them, they become hypocrisy. Well-intended legislators and lobby groups have long forgotten that "We the People" rule our personal lives, not government. A government's first duty is to protect personal liberty, not dictate conduct."